The thought of Plotinus and his pupil Porphyry, who taught a modern version of Platonism in the third century, shows some parallel interests with Origen. Porphyry wrote some works ‘remarkably close ...
More

The thought of Plotinus and his pupil Porphyry, who taught a modern version of Platonism in the third century, shows some parallel interests with Origen. Porphyry wrote some works ‘remarkably close to Christian spirituality’, while also being a fierce critic of Christian beliefs and the Bible. Neoplatonic ideas about the supreme triad of One, Mind, and Soul could be considered closely comparable with Christian ideas about God as Trinity.Less

Plotinus, Porphyry 1

Henry Chadwick

Published in print: 2001-12-13

The thought of Plotinus and his pupil Porphyry, who taught a modern version of Platonism in the third century, shows some parallel interests with Origen. Porphyry wrote some works ‘remarkably close to Christian spirituality’, while also being a fierce critic of Christian beliefs and the Bible. Neoplatonic ideas about the supreme triad of One, Mind, and Soul could be considered closely comparable with Christian ideas about God as Trinity.

A discussion of the language of ‘union without confusion’, so characteristic of the theology Maximus follows which rejects any separation or confusion in Christ. The notions of ‘union without ...
More

A discussion of the language of ‘union without confusion’, so characteristic of the theology Maximus follows which rejects any separation or confusion in Christ. The notions of ‘union without confusion’ and ‘interpenetration’ are discussed. The Neoplatonist Porphyry and St Cyril of Alexandria also feature in this chapter.Less

Union

Melchisedec TÖrÖnen

Published in print: 2007-01-11

A discussion of the language of ‘union without confusion’, so characteristic of the theology Maximus follows which rejects any separation or confusion in Christ. The notions of ‘union without confusion’ and ‘interpenetration’ are discussed. The Neoplatonist Porphyry and St Cyril of Alexandria also feature in this chapter.

This book breaks new ground in the study of later ancient philosophy by examining the interplay of the two main schools of thought, Platonism and Aristotelianism, from the first century BC to the ...
More

This book breaks new ground in the study of later ancient philosophy by examining the interplay of the two main schools of thought, Platonism and Aristotelianism, from the first century BC to the third century AD. From the time of Antiochus and for the next four centuries, Platonists were strongly preoccupied with the question of how Aristotle’s philosophy compared with the Platonic model. Scholars have usually classified Platonists into two groups, the orthodox ones and the eclectics or syncretists, depending on whether Platonists rejected Aristotle’s philosophy as a whole or accepted some Peripatetic doctrines. The book argues against this dichotomy, claiming that Platonists turned to Aristotle only in order to discover and elucidate Plato’s doctrines and thus to reconstruct Plato’s philosophy. They did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when judging him to be at odds with Plato. For them, Aristotle was merely auxiliary to their accessing and understanding Plato. The evaluation of Aristotle’s testimony on the part of the Platonists also depends on their interpretation of Aristotle himself. This is particularly clear in the case of Porphyry, with whom the ancient discussion reaches a conclusion, which most later Platonists accepted. While essentially in agreement with Plotinus’s interpretation of Plato, Porphyry interpreted Aristotle in such a way that the latter appeared to agree essentially with Plato on all significant philosophical questions, a view which was dominant until the Renaissance. It is argued that Porphyry’s view of Aristotle’s philosophy guided him to become the first Platonist to write commentaries on Aristotle’s works.Less

Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? : Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry

George E. Karamanolis

Published in print: 2006-04-06

This book breaks new ground in the study of later ancient philosophy by examining the interplay of the two main schools of thought, Platonism and Aristotelianism, from the first century BC to the third century AD. From the time of Antiochus and for the next four centuries, Platonists were strongly preoccupied with the question of how Aristotle’s philosophy compared with the Platonic model. Scholars have usually classified Platonists into two groups, the orthodox ones and the eclectics or syncretists, depending on whether Platonists rejected Aristotle’s philosophy as a whole or accepted some Peripatetic doctrines. The book argues against this dichotomy, claiming that Platonists turned to Aristotle only in order to discover and elucidate Plato’s doctrines and thus to reconstruct Plato’s philosophy. They did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when judging him to be at odds with Plato. For them, Aristotle was merely auxiliary to their accessing and understanding Plato. The evaluation of Aristotle’s testimony on the part of the Platonists also depends on their interpretation of Aristotle himself. This is particularly clear in the case of Porphyry, with whom the ancient discussion reaches a conclusion, which most later Platonists accepted. While essentially in agreement with Plotinus’s interpretation of Plato, Porphyry interpreted Aristotle in such a way that the latter appeared to agree essentially with Plato on all significant philosophical questions, a view which was dominant until the Renaissance. It is argued that Porphyry’s view of Aristotle’s philosophy guided him to become the first Platonist to write commentaries on Aristotle’s works.

Porphyry was much more involved in the study of Aristotle’s work than any other Platonist before him. It is shown that Porphyry criticized Aristotle, but he also considered him to have agreed with ...
More

Porphyry was much more involved in the study of Aristotle’s work than any other Platonist before him. It is shown that Porphyry criticized Aristotle, but he also considered him to have agreed with Plato in all crucial philosophical issues in physics, psychology, ethics, and metaphysics. Porphyry did not deny that Aristotle sometimes contradicted Plato. What he denied was that these contradictions undermined their essential accord. In Porphyry’s view, most of Aristotle’s disagreements with Plato can be reduced either to difference in perspective, or to Aristotle’s misunderstandings of Plato, or to misunderstandings of Aristotle by later interpreters.Less

Porphyry

George E. Karamanolis

Published in print: 2006-04-06

Porphyry was much more involved in the study of Aristotle’s work than any other Platonist before him. It is shown that Porphyry criticized Aristotle, but he also considered him to have agreed with Plato in all crucial philosophical issues in physics, psychology, ethics, and metaphysics. Porphyry did not deny that Aristotle sometimes contradicted Plato. What he denied was that these contradictions undermined their essential accord. In Porphyry’s view, most of Aristotle’s disagreements with Plato can be reduced either to difference in perspective, or to Aristotle’s misunderstandings of Plato, or to misunderstandings of Aristotle by later interpreters.

In ancient philosophy, sex, being in love (erôs), marriage, and rearing children each got advocated in separation from the others. Moreover, a good form of erôs got distinguished from one or two bad ...
More

In ancient philosophy, sex, being in love (erôs), marriage, and rearing children each got advocated in separation from the others. Moreover, a good form of erôs got distinguished from one or two bad forms, most influentially by Plato's Socrates. The Stoics agree and so are able to advocate a good form of erôs as not emotional, namely being led by beauty to make friends in order to inculcate virtue. The Epicureans are against erôs and in most circumstances against marriage. Sex would be alright as a palliative, if it did not lead to illusion, harm, and pain, so casual sex is better. Among the Neoplatonists, Porphyry wants the philosopher to avoid anything that might even arouse sexual desire, but Iamblichus rebukes him: erotic rituals for ordinary people provide Aristotelian catharsis.Less

Sex, Love, and Marriage In Pagan Philosophy and the Use Of Catharsis

Richard Sorabji

Published in print: 2002-09-05

In ancient philosophy, sex, being in love (erôs), marriage, and rearing children each got advocated in separation from the others. Moreover, a good form of erôs got distinguished from one or two bad forms, most influentially by Plato's Socrates. The Stoics agree and so are able to advocate a good form of erôs as not emotional, namely being led by beauty to make friends in order to inculcate virtue. The Epicureans are against erôs and in most circumstances against marriage. Sex would be alright as a palliative, if it did not lead to illusion, harm, and pain, so casual sex is better. Among the Neoplatonists, Porphyry wants the philosopher to avoid anything that might even arouse sexual desire, but Iamblichus rebukes him: erotic rituals for ordinary people provide Aristotelian catharsis.

If Aristotle's catharsis gets rid of something by allowing it moderate exercise, by tragedy it will get rid of an excessive disposition to grief, as well as pity and fear; and in comedy of an ...
More

If Aristotle's catharsis gets rid of something by allowing it moderate exercise, by tragedy it will get rid of an excessive disposition to grief, as well as pity and fear; and in comedy of an excessive disposition to contempt. Dispositions to fear, grief, and contempt do tend to be excessive. Until the Neoplatonists Porphyry and Iamblichus, there are only brief references to Aristotle's catharsis in Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, Philodemus, Plutarch, less clearly in the Stoics Diogenes of Babylon and Seneca. But among later Neoplatonists, Proclus denies theatre can be cathartic while Simplicius allows over-indulgence to be cathartic. Both compare a healing emetic. Olympiodorus associates catharsis through moderate exercise of emotion with Pythagoras, whereas Aristotle's catharsis is associated with his advice in Rhetoric to drive out one emotion by its opposite, and there are three other kinds of catharsis.Less

Catharsis and the Classification Of Therapies

Richard Sorabji

Published in print: 2002-09-05

If Aristotle's catharsis gets rid of something by allowing it moderate exercise, by tragedy it will get rid of an excessive disposition to grief, as well as pity and fear; and in comedy of an excessive disposition to contempt. Dispositions to fear, grief, and contempt do tend to be excessive. Until the Neoplatonists Porphyry and Iamblichus, there are only brief references to Aristotle's catharsis in Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, Philodemus, Plutarch, less clearly in the Stoics Diogenes of Babylon and Seneca. But among later Neoplatonists, Proclus denies theatre can be cathartic while Simplicius allows over-indulgence to be cathartic. Both compare a healing emetic. Olympiodorus associates catharsis through moderate exercise of emotion with Pythagoras, whereas Aristotle's catharsis is associated with his advice in Rhetoric to drive out one emotion by its opposite, and there are three other kinds of catharsis.

Neoplatonism, under Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, and Iamblicus, developed and modified ideas about preexistence. Church Fathers were divided on the question of preexistence, but many were its ...
More

Neoplatonism, under Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, and Iamblicus, developed and modified ideas about preexistence. Church Fathers were divided on the question of preexistence, but many were its advocates. The case of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria is equivocal. Tertullian was the principal foe and Origen the principal defender of the idea.Less

Neo‐Platonism and the Church Fathers

Terryl L. Givens

Published in print: 2009-09-10

Neoplatonism, under Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, and Iamblicus, developed and modified ideas about preexistence. Church Fathers were divided on the question of preexistence, but many were its advocates. The case of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria is equivocal. Tertullian was the principal foe and Origen the principal defender of the idea.

This chapter examines the evidence for the history of rhetoric after the completion of Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists. It shows that the movement generally known as the ‘Second Sophistic’ ...
More

This chapter examines the evidence for the history of rhetoric after the completion of Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists. It shows that the movement generally known as the ‘Second Sophistic’ continued to flourish in this period, and that rhetoric was taught by many sophists and philosophers, including (for example) Apsines, Longinus, Porphyry, and Metrophanes, as well as Menander himself. This period also saw the beginning of commentaries on technical works of rhetorical theory; the subsequent history of this genre is briefly summarized. Along with evidence for continuing creativity in literary scholarship, philosophy, law and theology, this shows that the political and military crisis of the 3rd century did not lead to an eclipse of intellectual culture.Less

The Third Century: Fruition

Malcolm Heath

Published in print: 2004-07-29

This chapter examines the evidence for the history of rhetoric after the completion of Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists. It shows that the movement generally known as the ‘Second Sophistic’ continued to flourish in this period, and that rhetoric was taught by many sophists and philosophers, including (for example) Apsines, Longinus, Porphyry, and Metrophanes, as well as Menander himself. This period also saw the beginning of commentaries on technical works of rhetorical theory; the subsequent history of this genre is briefly summarized. Along with evidence for continuing creativity in literary scholarship, philosophy, law and theology, this shows that the political and military crisis of the 3rd century did not lead to an eclipse of intellectual culture.

Examines Boethius's translations of logical texts by Aristotle and Porphyry, and his commentaries on them. It sets out Boethius's interpretation of the Aristotelian Categories, his response to the ...
More

Examines Boethius's translations of logical texts by Aristotle and Porphyry, and his commentaries on them. It sets out Boethius's interpretation of the Aristotelian Categories, his response to the Problem of Universals, his semantics, and his first answer to the problem of free will and divine prescience. It argues that Boethius made an important decision to go against the trend of logical commentary in his period and return to Porphyry's strongly Aristotelian approach.Less

Boethius's Project : The Logical Translations and Commentaries

John Marenbon

Published in print: 2003-02-27

Examines Boethius's translations of logical texts by Aristotle and Porphyry, and his commentaries on them. It sets out Boethius's interpretation of the Aristotelian Categories, his response to the Problem of Universals, his semantics, and his first answer to the problem of free will and divine prescience. It argues that Boethius made an important decision to go against the trend of logical commentary in his period and return to Porphyry's strongly Aristotelian approach.

Sketches early Christian initiatives to present faith as a privileged means of contact with God. Discusses the fourth-century religious climate of late Neoplatonism and suggests a much less hostile ...
More

Sketches early Christian initiatives to present faith as a privileged means of contact with God. Discusses the fourth-century religious climate of late Neoplatonism and suggests a much less hostile attitude to faith and revelation. In both Christian and non-Christian Neoplatonic circles, the exaltation of faith was part of the spirit of the age.Less

Introduction

Martin Laird

Published in print: 2004-04-29

Sketches early Christian initiatives to present faith as a privileged means of contact with God. Discusses the fourth-century religious climate of late Neoplatonism and suggests a much less hostile attitude to faith and revelation. In both Christian and non-Christian Neoplatonic circles, the exaltation of faith was part of the spirit of the age.